If someone appears to be repeatedly personal, lean towards patience as they might not mean offense. If you are sure, however, then do not deepen the problem by being negative; instead, simply place them on ignore by clicking the unhappy yellow face to the right of their name.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 5
Bet the US Supreme Court is delighted to see this one coming its way:
Former President Donald J. Trump is ineligible to hold office again, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday, accepting the argument that the 14th Amendment disqualifies him in an explosive decision that could upend the 2024 election.
In a lengthy ruling ordering the Colorado secretary of state to exclude Mr. Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot, the justices reversed a Denver district judge’s finding last month that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment — which disqualifies people who have engaged in insurrection against the Constitution after having taken an oath to support it from holding office — did not apply to the presidency.Like that Joe fella' might say: this is a BFD.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/19/us/politics/tru...
No. of Recommendations: 5
I have strong doubts the USSC will allow this ruling to stand without tampering with it or outright rejecting it based on some rationale pulled out of their Federalist playbook but...
If allowed to stand and if it sets a precedent any other state follows, here's the chain of dominos.
A similar ruling in any other state already likely to go for Biden and has winner-take-all rules for electoral college votes doesn't hurt Trump where it counts -- in the electoral college. It could be an embarrassment to see a popular vote total drop by a few more million but we all know, PEOPLE don't count, ELECTORS count and they are not the same thing.
A similar ruling in any other state Trump has a chance to WIN is a much different story. The margins for 2024 are probably so slim from an Electoral College standpoing that a difference of one or two swing states will likely be the difference. If a candidate loses one of those states because they could not appear on the ballot, THAT might serve as a wakeup call to the Republican Party that they cannot continue down this trail without getting wiped out. THAT might be enough for them to dump Trump and go with one of the other mini-Mussolinis. Still not much of an improvement but better than not returning someone to power who actively quotes Hitler at campaign rallies with admiration.
Granted, many of the states Trump would be heavily favored to win are already dominated by Repubican legislatures and (likely) Republican leaning judges so the odds of a Red state coming to this same conclusion are virtally nill. But purple states? Who knows?
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 5
It depends on the scholarship surrounding the 14th, yes? Trump hasn't been convicted of insurrection, so does the 14th apply? If he were convicted, then absolutely.
Of course, I don't think the feds have anything to say about who gets on a state (primary) ballot. The states can have their own rules, so I understand, as long as it doesn't violate federal law (e.g. discriminating against black people, women, the 14th Amendment, etc). Parties have their own rules, also (beside the point, but just thrown in to reinforce that the feds don't have much to say about it).
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Like that Joe fella' might say: this is a BFD."
No it is not, it is just more leftist nonsense
He has never been charged with insurrection, if the Left thinks he has....then man up and charge him with it. This will last about a half a minute , and make Colorado look as stupid as they seem to be.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Boater: He has never been charged with insurrection, if the Left thinks he has....then man up and charge him with it. This will last about a half a minute , and make Colorado look as stupid as they seem to be.
Tell me you didn't read the opinion without telling me you didn't read the opinion.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Aye, there's the rub....
In virtually EVERY other circumstance, the USSC in general has ruled that ELECTION LAW is inherently a STATE law issue. The changes in the 1964 Voting Rights Act were the first change in that interpretation. If I recall correctly (Albaby will likely be able to clarify / correct), the arguments used at that time were that restrictions imposed in the south to prevent voting were themselves an interference with the national governemnt by making it easier to prevent federal Representatives, Senators and Presidents from being selected by processes that truly represented the desires of voters, to the country's detriment.
Of course, as the conservatives on the USSC have allowed cases to reach the court stemming from the continuance of some of these 1964-era corrective plans, they have set these mechanisms aside either under the rationale of them no longer being necessary (the US is now color-blind and discrimination-free) OR by simply ruling such national rules violate the freedom of states to control their elections as called for in the Constitution.
Here's the thing with this ruling... The majority opinion QUOTES AT LENGTH prior opinions issued at the appellate court layer by current USSC Neil Gorsuch when he was SERVING on the appellate court level IN COLORADO. The opinion cited touts the importance of honoring states' rights regarding election matters. Now that EXACT issue is going to land on the Supreme Court's docket and force the court to contradict some of the other _____ it has been stating over the past 10-20 years or will require it to REJECT an opinion soundly based upon principles IDENTICAL to those it has espoused.
Here's a link to the opinion:
https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Cour...As then-Judge Gorsuch recognized in Hassan, it is "a state’s legitimate
interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political
process" that "permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are
constitutionally prohibited from assuming office." 495 F. App’x at 948.WTH
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Tell me you didn't read the opinion without telling me you didn't read the opinion."
Better hyet. you tell me that you really think that this has merit and will stand. LOL
No. of Recommendations: 2
I am not a Trump supporter.
This is a stupid decision.
Hello Pakistan.
Reverse the decision and let the voters decide at the ballot box.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Hello Pakistan.
Let's be clear:
They WANT it this way.
Just read their posts. These people don't hide who and what they are.
No. of Recommendations: 7
"He has never been charged with insurrection, "Last month a Judge determined that, based on the evidence presented, he did engage in the insurrection.
"Section Three of the 14th amendment does not require a conviction, just that the person "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" and the Jan 6 report contained ample evidence Trump did."https://www.wpxi.com/news/trending/what-is-section...
No. of Recommendations: 0
Last month a Judge determined that, based on the evidence presented, he did engage in the insurrection.
Sure, but is that sufficient? I know in some proceedings, it is. The Trump organization suffered that last month, as I recall. There was not much of a hearing, and they moved to the penalty phase (again, as I understood it). But that was in NY. This is Constitutional, and I assume the rules are different.
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Trump urged the highly emotionally charged mob to march on the capital, fingered his own VP as a fall guy (hence the HANG MIKE PENCE chanting). In the aftermath Trump refers to the convicted insurrectionists as heroes, and says he will pardon them.
The judge made factual findings based on actual evidence,not opinions. If Sec. 3 is no longer respected it should be eliminated.
No. of Recommendations: 2
""He has never been charged with insurrection, "
Last month a Judge determined that, based on the evidence presented, he did engage in the insurrection."
If they think that is so, they have an obligation to charge him with having done so. They know that they have a real problem making that charge stick......its that pesky "go peacefully and patriotically to the Capitol..."
No. of Recommendations: 0
What would / should Trump's supporters do if they are disenfranchised ?
74 million voted for Trump in 2020.
No. of Recommendations: 4
dividends20: What would / should Trump's supporters do if they are disenfranchised ?
74 million voted for Trump in 2020.
Well, at least you didn't preface your message with "I'm not a Trump supporter" this time.
Maybe you could ask the 168 million women in the U.S. who were disenfranchised when they lost control over their own healthcare decisions at the hands of the high court and get back to us.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe you could ask the 168 million women in the U.S.
168 million women in the US. ? Fake news or legacy media conspiracy made up this number.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Maybe you could ask the 168 million women in the U.S. who were disenfranchised when they lost control over their own healthcare decisions at the hands of the high court and get back to us.
Are you talking about all the lives saved?
No. of Recommendations: 1
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Sure, but is that sufficient? "
Cliffhangers r us.
As Albaby observed, loopholes are the stock in trade of the legal profession.
Joe6pack says it is what it is. He encouraged the people who attempted to stop the certification of a legitimate election. The mob failed.
The Rebels failed to break up the union. There were no convictions for the participants of the rebellions who were denied office in the aftermath. They did what they did and that made them 'not qualified.'
Born in Slovenia to Communist parents? Not qualified.
Under 33yrs of age? Not qualified.
Encourage/aid/comfort? (Check, check and check)? Not qualified.
No. of Recommendations: 2
If they think that is so, they have an obligation to charge him with having done so.
You may be right. I don't know.
Can you please cite the legal document that supports that belief?
No. of Recommendations: 7
What would / should Trump's supporters do if they are disenfranchised ?
Respecting the Constitution and obeying the law would be a good start.
Support honest candidates that also respect the Constitution and obey the law would be another thing they could do.
No. of Recommendations: 8
dividends20:
168 million women in the US. ? Fake news or legacy media conspiracy made up this number.Statista: "As of July 1, 2022, there were 165.28 million males and 168 million females living in the United States. The overall population of the United States has remained steady since 2010."
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241495/us-popu....
U.S. Census: FEMALE POPULATION. "About 168 million. There were 167,509,003 women living in the United States – or 50.5% of the population in 2021.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/sis/resou...Maybe you should go back to telling us you're not a Trump supporter.
No. of Recommendations: 6
What would / should Trump's supporters do if they are disenfranchised ?
There's a difference between being being disenfranchised and believing you are being disenfranchised.
Whether Trump got drunk and kills himself in a one car accident, or violated the Constitution rendering himself unqualified, he did it himself.
If the former, don your finest MAGAwear for his funeral and wail.
If the latter, take it up with him for violating the Constitution, disqualifying himself from holding office in these United States of America.
Either way, they were not disenfranchised by anybody but the Orange Rapist.
No. of Recommendations: 1
C"an you please cite the legal document that supports that belief?"
The US Constitution. AG Garland swore an oath to defend and support the Constitution and is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land. If he knows that Trump was responsible for an insurrection against this country he is duty bound to prosecute the case. He hasn't done so, why is that????
No. of Recommendations: 1
As of July 1, 2022, there were 165.28 million males and 168 million females living in the United States
Nonsense. 42% of females voted for Trump. Also, babies cannot vote.
Stop lying and exaggerating and get a job.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Last month a Judge determined that, based on the evidence presented, he did engage in the insurrection."
That's funny, When this was brought before the Senate at the 2nd impeachment the Senate did ot see it and remove him from office because of the charge. How do you explain the fact the Senate of the United States does not know as much as a handful of unelected Justices in Colorado? Also of interest, the head judge of the Colorado Supreme Court voted against doing this as inappropriate.
No. of Recommendations: 7
Boater: That's funny, When this was brought before the Senate at the 2nd impeachment the Senate did ot see it and remove him from office because of the charge.
Say what, now?
Judge Sarah B. Wallace made this determination in November of 2023 so there's no way her finding was brought before the Senate in his second impeachment. Also, you'll recall that republicans who declined to impeach Trump said that the matter should be settled in the courts since Trump was out of office.
McConnell: "There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president and having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth."
But, hey, McConnell said, let the courts deal with the bum, we don't want to dirty our hands.
No. of Recommendations: 1
You are making losing arguments. Why not explain why AG Garland has not brought insurrection charges if they are so easy to see. The Senate missed it apparently, DOJ seems to be unable to see it, but 6 keen eyed unelected Democrat judges have the ability to disenfranchise 1 million voters on their own.
No. of Recommendations: 2
These clowns insist on opening Pandora's boxes, don't they?
Game theory dictates that when one side screws over another, the screwed side then actively hurts the first side until they change their behavior.
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Can you please cite the legal document that supports that belief?"
The US Constitution."
Sorry, my bad. I should have specified 'amendment/section' or the specific Federal law/act/public law section and/or code number.
Garland is a judge, not an attorney who proffers charges. He doesn't go around looking for things to prosecute.
So again, what specific section of what document do you believe obligates a judge to prosecute, especially when no state or federal attorney has brought charges?
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Garland is a judge, not an attorney who proffers charges. He doesn't go around looking for things to prosecute.'
Of course he does, parents at school board meetings, anti abortion folks, churchgoers etc have all been surveilled by the DOJ for potential prosecution.
No. of Recommendations: 5
How do you explain the fact the Senate of the United States does not know as much as a handful of unelected Justices in Colorado?
It's not a question of what is known in the Senate. It was a demonstration of partisan loyalty and nothing more.
Judges are theoretically not bound by partisan loyalty... but then there are the Clarence Thomases that spoil that ideal.
"Ten Republican representatives voted for the second impeachment, the most pro-impeachment votes ever from a president's party. This was also the first presidential impeachment in which the majority caucus voted unanimously for impeachment."
No. of Recommendations: 2
" It was a demonstration of partisan loyalty and nothing more.
Judges are theoretically not bound by partisan loyalty... but then there are the Clarence Thomases that spoil that ideal."
That spoil the deal??? This is what happens when you stop teaching Civics in school it seems. Its still the Kiddies table in your case.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Garland is a judge, not an attorney who proffers charges. He doesn't go around looking for things to prosecute.
My bad.... I mis-saw what you wrote.... read Garland, thinking you wrote Gorsuch.... .....
